Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte

Project was refused today by Committee of Adjustment. Interesting to see what happens next.
S'Bus
 
SpadinaBus said:
Project was refused today by Committee of Adjustment. Interesting to see what happens next.
S'Bus
Click to expand...

Booooooooooooooooooo! Saucier and Perrotte, don't let 'em dumb you down!

Although, honestly, this seems to be standard practice for Vaughan's ward. I have a feeling it will be eventually successful, with hopefully minor adjustments made to the design.
 
Parkdalian said:
Booooooooooooooooooo! Saucier and Perrotte, don't let 'em dumb you down!

Although, honestly, this seems to be standard practice for Vaughan's ward. I have a feeling it will be eventually successful, with hopefully minor adjustments made to the design.
Click to expand...

I respect your admiration for the work of Saucier and Perrotte, I like their work as well. That being said, I haven't seen a "standard practice" with respect to rejections in Ward 20. Fashion House, the last Freed project to go before the Committee of Adjustments, was passed. There were alterations prior to that, and a drop in two floors.

I am going to assume that one obvious reason for rejection is that the project goes against elements of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. Hopefully SpadinaBus can fill us in on the particulars. A couple of other contentious issues for 621 King included the absence of family-sized suites and the overwhelming number of small units. In addition, the developer was to maintain ownership of a rooftop bar - which was retained from when the proposal was for a hotel and not a residential building.
 
Last edited:
gristle said:
I respect your admiration for the work of Saucier and Perrotte, I like their work as well. That being said, I haven't seen a "standard practice" with respect to rejections in Ward 20. Fashion House, the last Freed project to go before the Committee of Adjustments, was passed. There were alterations prior to that, and a drop in two floors.
Click to expand...

Fashion House is an exception - most of the development proposals get rejected at one point or another. It's part of the give and take. It's also a ward that's in transition from mid-rise to high-rise and from commercial to residential - developers are going to keep bumping against the ceiling of what they are supposed to do. I think Vaughan encourages it to ensure he can get novel concessions out of the developers. The recent one that required affordable housing on the floor of one of the condo buildings is pretty interesting, and would only happen in an environment where Vaughan (and the community councils) play hardball up front.
 
A quote from today's Globe supports my point:

"But Adam Vaughan, whose Trinity-Spadina ward saw 3,000 new units of housing brought online between June and September, said the proposal would take away some of the flexibility the city now has in negotiating height and density with developers.

“From an architectural perspective it’s an interesting set of ideas … but on the ground, in reality, I’ve got a lot of concerns,” he said.

Now, the city reaps the financial benefits of being able to effectively trade extra height for funds that go toward public space. The vast majority of the new developments going up south of Queen Street have been financial windfalls for the city, he said – to the tune of $1-million each."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...councillor-worries/article1746631/?cmpid=rss1
 
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing for unfettered rights for developers if and when you like their chosen architect, or can a local community have some say about what gets built? I live in Vaughan's ward and I attend many community meetings. He isn't some anti-development freak; he's actually very even-handed and manages to inform himself about each and every presentation. I look around where I live and there is plenty of development here. Hardly a doom and gloom situation for developers at the hand of the evil Vaughan.

Just look at those numbers. Do you really think rejection is a standard practice in his ward?
 
gristle said:
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing for unfettered rights for developers if and when you like their chosen architect, or can a local community have some say about what gets built?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am arguing for unfettered rights for developers. [eye roll] Maybe you should reread what I've written before making daft statements like that.

My point is that Vaughan knows how to play politics. He admits to trading height for other concessions. Take the 12 degrees condo. It was rejected at first for all sorts of reasons, and then it got through with some concessions. Heritage was an issue at first, and then, mysteriously, it wasn't. If he doesn't encourage community council to reject the condo, how can he squeeze more money out of the developers for the city? Vaughan is a noble guy, but he's also a very good politican. He knows when to kick up a stink and when to shut up if it's in his and the city's best interests.
 
Parkdalian said:
Yes, I am arguing for unfettered rights for developers. [eye roll] Maybe you should reread what I've written before making daft statements like that.
Click to expand...

It was not a statement, but a question to you.

Of course developers should offer something back to the community and do something other than to make large sums of money. What is wrong with that? From what I recall of many community meetings, you often find considerable feedback coming from local residents regarding a neighbouring development. Otherwise, the reality is that unhappy developers who meet with community opposition and failure at the Committee of Adjustments move off to whine at the OMB for development decisions - no matter what the local councillor says.

Were you at the public meetings regarding 12 degrees? I was. The aim was to see whether the building that was to be demolished had heritage merit of any kind, and there was considerable support for the effort on the part of some members of the community who had a strong interest in their neighbourhood. I don't see anything wrong with such an action, but I guess such a sentiment is not always shared by everyone. I don't recall ever having Vaughan tell me what I should think or feel about a given project, or hearing him tell others what the right answer is or is not. I've even witnessed individuals challenge Vaughan, and he didn't kick up any stink when they did.

And imagine getting fifty or a hundred thousand bucks from a developer for public art, housing or planning studies. Developers have, among other things, the money to keep sales offices staffed and open for years. They know how to work the development system better than anyone - even city politicians - and they are not adverse to running roughshod over their neighbours to get what they want. Then they put buildings up that everyone is stuck with if they turn out to be dogs.

An elected city councillor trying to look out for his community and the city's interests. Imagine that!

And boohoo for poor Peter Freed. After the sale of his six million dollar condo, life must be tough.
 
Gristle - you're really not reading Parkdalian's posts very well: he's on your side. You can stop arguing already!

42
 
Freed has now officially appealed the CofA decision to the OMB. No date yet.
Another fight is on which seems to be the prelude to the Front/Bathurst battle to come later in 2011 by Freed & Minto on that behometh JV project!
S'Bus
 
The OMB hearing was to be held from February 4th to 6th. Apparently only two days were required for presentations, cross examinations and statements from the community. The decision is still pending.
 
The OMB approved the development plans for 621 King Street West, consisting of 2 buildings, 11 and 12 storeys, and a total of 310 units. Building heights are close to 36 and 40 metres, respectively.
 
Last edited:
That's very unfortunate. This is just a big slab turned on its side - and it smashes the city's own Secondary Plan for the area. Now every developer will be pushing for more height in King Spadina.

If not operating on the basis of the city plan, what does the OMB work by? Opinions? Pay-offs?


There was an article in today's Globe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nd-height-of-king-west-condos/article1920157/
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think since he became Councillor, this is the first development in Vaughan's ward that has gone to OMB and lost.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top